Patna High Court
Meghnath Ram vs The Union Of India And Ors on 25 February, 2023
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19290 of 2017
======================================================
Meghnath Ram Son of late Bhagirath Ram, Resident of Village-
Shankarbigha, P.S.-Wazirganj, District-Gaya. At Present Resident of Mohalla-
Gola Road, P.S.-Rupaspur. District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India and Ors
2. The Union Public Service Commission, through the Secretary, Dholpur
House, Sahjahan Road, New Delhi
3. The State of BIhar throughits Chief Secretary, OLd Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of BIhar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
5. The Special Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
6. The Joint Secretary, Home Police Department, Governement of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
7. The Director General- of Police Cum Inspector General of Police,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretari
8. The Additional Director Girector of Police Law and Order, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Pat
9. The Zonal Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga.
10. Department Enquiry Commissioner cum Conducting Officer, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
11. Inspector General of Police Headquarter, Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Md.Irshad, AC to SC1
For the UPSC : Mr.K.K.Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 25-02-2023 Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 2/8 In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of Central Administration Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'CAT') dated 26.08.2016 passed in O.A. No. 635 of 2013 (Annexure-14).
2. The petitioner while working as Superintendent of Police, Samastipur Disctrict, he was alleged to have committed certain misdeeds and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in framing article of charges on 20.05.2006 by the State of Bihar. He had submitted his reply to the charge memo thereafter it was not to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority - State of Bihar and it proceeded to hold inquiry. During pendency of the inquiry he has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.10.2010. Consequently, inquiry officer held that charge no. 4 was proved and other charges were not proved. In this regard, show-cause notice along with the inquiring officer's report was made available to the petitioner on 15.11.2011. He had submitted his reply on 29.11.2011.
3. Having regard to the fact that he has attained age of superannuation and retired from service and he was in the All India Service Cadre, therefore, file was forwarded to the Central Government for taking further steps in the matter. State Government is stated to have recommended for imposition of Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 3/8 penalty of 10% cut in pension on 25.01.2012. On 24.05.2012 Central Government rejected the recommendation of the State Government, for the reasons that there were no pecuniary loss to the Government nor misconduct was found to be committed. However, Central Government took a decision to forward the papers to UPSC based on re-proposal by the State Government. UPSC recommended for imposition of 5% cut in pension. Copy of the UPSC advise was made available to the petitioner for his say. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted his reply 05.01.2013, in the result penalty of 5% cut in pension has been imposed by the Union of India on 08.02.2013.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty of 5% cut in pension, petitioner has filed original application before the CAT. CAT rejected O.A. No. 635 of 2013 on 26.08.2016. Hence, the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the inception there is a lacuna in framing of article of charges. Article of charges were not supported by statement of imputation. It is submitted that reading of article of charges does not constitute charge, in other words dates and events are not forthcoming, therefore, charges are very vague. Statement of imputation and list of documents and list of witnesses were not made available along Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 4/8 with the charge memo, in terms of Rule 8(4) of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short 'Rules, 1969').
6. It is further submitted that even though CAT in its order has taken note of that there were technical grounds, however, CAT failed to interfere as is evident from Para 6. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment and order of CAT are liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State, UPSC and Union of India resisted the aforesaid contentions and they have supported the order of CAT.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
9. From perusal of the records, it is evident that article of charges issued under Rule 8 of Rules, 1969 is not in consonance with Rule 8(4) like furnishing statement of imputation in support of the alleged charge. The charge no. 4 which has been proved is re-produced hereunder:-
"vkjksi la[;k&4 mijksDr vkjksiksa ds lanHkZ esa iqfyl eq[;ky; }kjk tc buls izfrfdz;k ekaxh x;h] rks bUgksaus vusdksa Lekj ds ckn Hkh viuh izfrfdz;k iqfyl eq[;ky; esa lefiZr ugh fd;s] tks ojh; iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds vkns"k dk mYya?ku djus dk ifjpk;d gSA"
10. Reading of the above charge no. 4 it does not constitute charge for the reasons that no material information is available like dates and events on what date the concerned officer Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 5/8 is superior to the petitioner had given direction and how petitioner had disobeyed, etc. In the absence of ingredients constituting charge one cannot draw inference that charge no. 4 is crystal clear charge. Moreover, it is not supported by statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses in order to prove that petitioner had disobeyed particular direction or orders of superior with reference to particular dates and events. This is a serious lacuna committed by the State of Bihar while framing article of charges on 20.05.2013. This lacuna has not been taken note of by the State of Bihar, Union of India and UPSC. Even though CAT has taken note of it, however, it has brushed aside the technical ground raised by the petitioner. In not framing article of charges in the light of Rule 8 of Rules, 1969, it will go to the root of the matter. Moreover, in the present case punishment of cut in pension to the extent of 5% has been awarded only with reference to charge no. 4 which is stated to have been proved. Charge no. 4 itself is very vague as is evident from the cited charge (supra).
11. Apex Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182 in Para 22 it is held as under:-
"22. The sixty-five page report has been sent to the Managing Director of the Nigam against the petitioner recording therein that the charges against him stand proved -- Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 6/8 what is the basis? Was the enquiry officer justified in coming to such a conclusion on the basis of the charge-sheet only? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative; if the records have been considered, the immediate necessity would be to consider as to who is the person who has produced the same and the next issue could be as regards the nature of the records -- unfortunately there is not a whisper in the rather longish report in that regard. Where is the presenting officer? Where is the notice fixing the date of hearing? Where is the list of witnesses? What has happened to the defence witnesses? All these questions arise but unfortunately no answer is to be found in the rather longish report. But if one does not have it -- can it be termed to be in consonance with the concept of justice or the same tantamounts to a total miscarriage of justice. The High Court answers it as miscarriage of justice and we do lend our concurrence therewith. The whole issue has been dealt with in such a way that it cannot but be termed to be totally devoid of any justifiable reason and in this context a decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of Denby (William) and Sons Ltd. v. Minister of Health [(1936) 1 KB 337 : 105 LJKB 134 : 154 LT 180] may be considered. Swift, J. while dealing with the administrative duties of the Minister has the following to state:
"I do not think that it is right to say that the Minister of Health or any other officer of the State who has to administer an Act of Parliament is a judicial officer. He is an administrative officer, carrying out the duties of an administrative office, and administering the provisions of particular Acts of Parliament. From time to time, in the course of administrative duties, he has to perform acts which require him to interfere with the rights and property of individuals, and in doing that the courts have said that he must Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 7/8 act fairly and reasonably; not capriciously, but in accordance with the ordinary dictates of justice. The performance of those duties entails the exercise of the Minister's discretion, and I think what was said by Lord Halsbury in Sharp v. Wakefield [1891 AC 173 : 60 LJ MC 73 : 64 LT 180 (HL)] (AC at p. 179) is important to consider with reference to the exercise of such discretion. He there said:
' "Discretion" means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke case [(1598) 5 Co Rep 99b, 100a] ; according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.' "
The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case aptly applicable to the case in hand. Further, it is to be noticed that State has taken six long years to complete the process of departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner.
12. In the light of these facts and circumstances the petitioner has made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the penalty of 5% cut in pension dated 08.02.2013 and order of the CAT dated 26.08.2016 passed in O.A. No. 635 of 2013 and they are set aside.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19290 of 2017 dt.25-02-2023 8/8
14. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to settle monetary benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.03.2023 Transmission Date NA